Jail for lawyer - for advising his client to stay silent

[draco664]

Link

A lawyer continually advises his client not to answer the question "Would you pass a drug test?" Problem was that the question was being asked by a judge.

The judge ruled that advising your client to exercise his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination was contempt of court, and jailed the lawyer.

Note that the lawyer was in jail for only a few hours before an appeals court ordered him released pending appeal. I suspect that jailing lawyers for doing their job would be unpopular to all lawyers, no matter their views.

[Greenday]

Unless he was somehow being obnoxious about it, I don't see what he did wrong. There was no contempt of court that I know about.

[Rapscallion]

Judge fouled up, constitution of the US upheld, suspect damages for false imprisonment are going to be demanded. Sums it up?

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

suspect damages for false imprisonment are going to be demanded.

I doubt it.

[lordlundar]

I doubt it.

Oh please, it's a lawyer. By the new year he's going to be on every major news network bitching about the "travesty to justice" and threatening to sue anyone he can find over it.

[Greenday]

Because he'll be dumb enough to waste his time and money on a fruitless attempt to sue the courts.

[Panacea]

Judge fouled up, constitution of the US upheld, suspect damages for false imprisonment are going to be demanded. Sums it up?

Rapscallion

Judges get overruled all the time. Nothing will happen to the judge, except he might get his wrist slapped.

But the system did work the way it is supposed to. The lawyer was right to tell his client not to answer; not even a judge can compel a defendant to be a witness against himself.

[Tanasi]

If the judge had granted immunity to the defendent and the attorney contiunued to advise his client to invoke the 5th then it would be contempt.

[Greenday]

If the judge had granted immunity to the defendent and the attorney contiunued to advise his client to invoke the 5th then it would be contempt.

It'd probably be contempt if he was being super obnoxious about it too.

[Tanasi]

The could be the case but if not, the judge really doesn't have a let to stand on. It's the attorney's sworn duty to advise their client the judge can't interfer unless it's disrupting the court or illegal.

[Panacea]

If the judge had granted immunity to the defendent and the attorney contiunued to advise his client to invoke the 5th then it would be contempt.

That's a true statement, but it doesn't sound like that happened in this case. The judge was asking the defendant if he thought he could pass a drug test. That's a prejudicial question; if the defendant answered it yes, the judge could make a decision that could result in the defendant going back to jail. If the defendant says no, and the judge says, "we'll just see about that, I order you to take a drug test," the he comes up positive, now he lands a perjury charge.

Shutting up with the defendants best option. This is why the 5th amendment exists.

[Tanasi]

That's a true statement, but it doesn't sound like that happened in this case. The judge was asking the defendant if he thought he could pass a drug test. That's a prejudicial question; if the defendant answered it yes, the judge could make a decision that could result in the defendant going back to jail. If the defendant says no, and the judge says, "we'll just see about that, I order you to take a drug test," the he comes up positive, now he lands a perjury charge.

Shutting up with the defendants best option. This is why the 5th amendment exists.

Oh I agree, I'm certainly not supporting the judge at all. It this case even if the judge didn't use the information make the defendents probation officer could??? Even without my attorney being present I hope I'm smart enough to keep my mouth shut in similar situations.

[senor boogie woogie]

Being on the stand and invoking 5th Amendment privilege is saying that the person did something that they are not legally obliged to tell. If they could tell the truth, they could. By invoking the 5th, this is implicit of guilt.

[Panacea]

Being on the stand and invoking 5th Amendment privilege is saying that the person did something that they are not legally obliged to tell. If they could tell the truth, they could. By invoking the 5th, this is implicit of guilt.

No, no, no, no, no! It is most certainly NOT!

The 5th Amendment says you can't be forced to be a witness against yourself, to say things that might incriminate you. It does not say the guilty can conceal a crime.

Sometimes people refuse to answer questions because they think (correctly) that the police are out to get them. There are many instances of police badgering suspects until they crack and say whatever the police want them to say, just so the police can claim "case solved." There are cases where innocent people have confessed to heinous crimes due to these tactics. The 5th allows citizens protection from such tactics.

Sometimes people want to stay silent because, while they may be innocent of a crime, they may have done something that will have bad social or economic repercussions: like committing adultery.

Just a person invokes the 5th, doesn't mean they are guilty of anything. It means they don't want to give statements that can be used against them later, and nothing more.

Do criminals abuse this? Sure. That's why the police have to find other evidence of the crime. Good police work can eventually get around a person's refusal to talk.